Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Challenge: A Sailing Simulation


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ansh 666 22:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

American Challenge: A Sailing Simulation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced and fails to prove notability. I was unable to find any online sources besides the ones already in the article, and MobyGames only lists one other review. No possible redirect or merge targets so this should be deleted as a non-notable video game.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  06:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  07:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To allow discussion of Tim's sources...
 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NVIDEOGAMES does not help either. -The Gnome (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I was ready to jump on the delete train, but there's not only a review in the NY Times when the game first came out, but PC Magazine actually looked back at the game and its peers in an article last year. Both sources have been added to the article. By the standards of an article today, this is a weak delete, but keep in mind that few online sources existed in 1986. I'm going to add one more I just found while typing this. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  19:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  19:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources:
 * -The NYT article presents a bunch of "cute, handy little programs" among which is the subject program, mentioned by name only once.
 * -In the PC magazine article, seven "early modem-to-modem computer games" are presented, among which is the subject program.
 * -In the great upload of the 1986 Annual Shopping Guide of Family Computing magazine, our subject gets reviewed with literally hundreds of other software. I have my doubts if that constitutes notability. Moreover, I spent some time perusing the mag and it seems most reviews are positive, if not enthusiastic. A suspect source, for me.
 * -La revue dans Tilt n'est qu'une parmi beaucoup d'autres, how do you say? One among many, many other small reviews.
 * -And the Changing Times piece has lists of gifts for the 1986 holidays and our subject gets a small mention with other software. Every product mentioned in the mag is lauded and praised. More uncritical promotion, I'm afraid.
 * By the way, someone correctly pointed out that we may lack online sources for notable video-games of the pre-internet era. Yet, there are some criteria for that era: Every game was reviewed back then! Yet, I submit not every game was notable. When a game was noticed/notable at the time, there were reports taking up serious space in the mags, such as a one- or two pager, at least; not just pocket reviews. So, all in all, this proud owner of dozens of Amiga games, plus one mint 500, and one mint 1200, someone who's all for the recognition of the geniuses of the recent videogame past, alas, fails to establish notability for the subject program on the basis of the cited sources. All we get for sure is essentially that the software existed. No one disputes that. -The Gnome (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that almost every game was reviewed, but this one was highly praised at the time for being groundbreaking. Notability is not fleeting. Also, I thought it was important that PC Magazine chose to highlight this one among a handful of games 31 years later. WP:NTEMP, right? That puts in just in keep territory for me. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  18:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's alright. What's barely above for you looks fairly below to me. It's limbo time! -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. The Gnome has spoken. Ifnord (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.